The story of the Exodus is one of the greatest stories ever told. Even without knowledge of the rich traditions and historical events surrounding the Exodus, the events of that time shaped the future of the world, and not just the Jews or the west, but every corner of the planet. I am therefore somewhat dumbfounded how Hollywood has repeatedly managed to mess up the story and alter it to their own liking. This is not to say that there have been no good movies about the Exodus, but not a single one to date does the historical or Biblical events justice. Now it is Ridley Scott’s turn to try to do justice to the story, but Ridley Scott is an agnostic. Would he do justice to Exodus?

Owing to the nature of Biblical epics, I feel it is necessary to divide my review into three sections. The first will deal with the movie itself. From a strictly cinematic viewpoint, how does the film stand up. Is it entertaining? Does Christian Bale make a believable Moses? Will the film stand the test of time. The second section of this review will deal with its Biblical accuracy, or lack thereof. What does the film change? Is it accurate? Does it show due respect to Moses and the historical events of the Exodus? Finally, I will address objectionable content.

Cinematic review

Ridley Scott is a talented director, of that few can doubt. His second film was the surprising hit film “Alien.” He followed it up with “Blade Runner,” which earned due credit on video, even if it was neglected at the box office. He is best known to younger viewers as the director of the absurdly unhistorical and exploitive movie “Gladiator.” It is natural to expect that “Exodus” would have the same polished look and feel, but to an extent that is the problem. At times, Moses sounds like Maximus from “Gladiator,” shouting and screaming with a sword in hand. There is even a scene where Pharaoh Seti regrets that Rhamses would succeed him instead of Moses (just like in “Gladiator”). We feel, at times, as if we are watching a retread of “Gladiator” or “Kingdom of Heaven.” Moses even leads the Jews in military revolt before God intervenes and issues the Ten Plagues upon Egypt.

It is fair to start with the movie’s strengths. It tries, with moderate success, to emphasize the brotherhood of Pharaoh and Moses. The Moses character of feels that the Egyptians are his family, and not the Jews. His character is meant to change slowly over the course of the film. In the beginning, Moses is a skeptic who refuses to even acknowledge his kinship with the Jews. Eventually, through the course of events, he becomes the leader of the Jews, but as well intentioned as the script may have been, Moses’s transformation is never quite believable, nor convincing. Aside from this, the film falls flat, emphasizing special effects rather than characterization.

In fairness to Scott, the film is more respectful than the movie “Noah,” but then it would be hard to be that blasphemous and bad, and this is hardly the standard which we should accept. The biggest problem with “Exodus” is its alterations to the Biblical story. I will address most of these below, but it is notable that the film appears to make many of the miracles appear as natural phenomenon triggered by God. Even the parting of the Red Sea is portrayed, not as a parting, but as a dried up sea bed. It is a hurricane of sorts that brings water in from afar.

Is it logical to believe that the biblical miracles really happened? Answer

Now it is clear that these are still intended as miracles, but throughout the film even the priest of Egypt tried to dismiss the miracles as natural phenomenon. In fact, the priests acknowledge that the plagues are miracles, but try desperately to claim that the gods of Egypt are stronger. The Pharaoh is not an agnostic but a worshiper of false gods whom he believes will eventually overpower the Israelite’s “one true God.” This is only hinted at in the film when Pharaoh arrogantly declares “I am a god! I am a god!”

Another problem is that while seeming to downplay the miraculous nature of the plagues, it is no irony that the movie is filled with completely unrealistic scenes which actually made me chuckle. Three scenes come to mind. First was my shock at finding that the Chinese apparently did not invent gun powder, for Moses leads a revolt against Pharaoh and triggers massive explosions: yes, explosions. Even in historical epics from antiquity, Hollywood still has to blow things up! Second, in a scene seemingly lifted from “Gladiator,” Moses stabs a chariot with his spear, causing it to fly into the air (Isaac Newton would shudder).

Finally, when the Red Sea drowns all of Egypt’s army, Moses and Pharaoh are staring each other down in the middle of the Sea when the water hits. Apparently both are strong swimmers, for they both survive (no one else does), ending up on opposite sides of the sea.

Finally, it must be noted that “Exodus: Gods and Kings” is exceedingly depressing in tone. Nowhere do we see singing Jews celebrating their freedom as in the song of Miriam. If “The Prince of Egypt” was the happy Exodus movie (and best) then “Exodus: Gods and Kings” is clearly the darkest and most depressing. This too seems to be a trademark of a Ridley Scott film, but it is also a sad commentary on agnosticism, for I cannot think of an agnostic filmmaker who really makes happy films. This irony should not go unnoticed. Ultimately, it is only God who can give us true happiness.

Inaccuracy, wrong Pharaoh, wrong Moses, etc.

There are a plethora of alterations and mistakes in the film; some of which have been alluded to already. Some are alterations made for cinematic reasons. Some are errors in exegesis and bad archeology. Others are deliberate theological alterations which reflect the director’s agnosticism. I will reserve the more troubling ones for last.

The first and most glaring error is apparent in the trailers, and, unfortunately, is one found in every movie about the Exodus ever made. It is of concern because Bible critics take advantage of the mistake to claim that the Bible is a historical myth. I refer to the fact that Rhamses was not the Pharaoh of the Exodus. 1 Kings 6:1 (among others) places the Exodus almost 150 years before Rhamses. This is important because the archaeological evidence supports an Exodus in the 15th century before Christ, but offers no support for an Exodus under Rhamses.

Atheists and others emphasize the lack of evidence for Rhamses, and take advantage of the fact that most people have been trained to think of Rhamses as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Moreover, the actual events surrounding the Exodus would make for a fascinating subplot were it not for the fact that these films must rewrite part of the Bible to make the story fit with Rhamses. Consider, for example, the fact that the Pharaoh who sought Moses’ life died before the Exodus. The Pharaoh of the Exodus was not his step-brother, but his step-nephew.

A long list of errors and alterations could ensue, including the fact that the film portrays only nine years between Moses’ exile and his return. Moses is shown killing the guard in self defense (Exodus 2:11-12). Moses is around 40 years old when he leads the Exodus (Exodus 7:7). Moses is thought to be a true Egyptian by all in the Egyptian court, and a host of others.

Some have also objected to the portrayal of Egyptians and Jews by white Europeans, but this is only partially true. First, Egyptian art depicts Egyptians as red, Nubians as brown, and Semites (like Jews) as yellow. Second, Sir Ben Kingsley is actually half Indian. Likewise, many of the lesser characters are Indian, near easterners, and Jews. Still, it is fair to criticize the reality of Rhamses being portrayed by a Welsh actor. Nevertheless, far more important alterations follow.

One serious alteration is that of Moses himself. He is portrayed as an agnostic before his encounter with God on Sinai. Although Moses argued with God in the Bible, the movie clearly portrays Moses’s wrestling with God on a more cynical level. At one point in the film, Moses shouts at God “if you meant to humble me, it will not work!” This in contrast to the declaration that “Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the Earth” (Numbers 12:2). He also tends to shout rather than stutter as Jewish tradition recounts (cf. Exodus 4:10). Most intriguing is that he only meets Pharaoh twice face to face before the death of the first-born children. In the first encounter, Moses pulls a sword on Rhamses and threatens him. He does not say “Let my people go,” but speaks of his own authority as a rebel leader. He spends much of the movie hiding from Pharaoh, and he even tries to lead a military revolt before God intervenes.

Arguably, the strangest alteration to the Bible, made clearly to appeal to fans of Scott’s action films, is the depiction of Moses leading a war of attrition against Egypt. The Jews are taught to fight and attack several military and supply sites. This revolt is clearly out of place in the film and completely un-Biblical. From the beginning, God told Moses what to do and say, but this leads to another change: God. In the film, God is portrayed as a little boy. He first appears standing in front of the burning bush and appears at recurring points in the film. Moses is seen arguing with a child.

Finally, I have already alluded to the fact that the miracles are made to look more like natural phenomenon unleashed by God, but the irony is that such “natural” events are far more unrealistic than a supernatural event. Consider the plague of blood. In the movie, a series of crocodiles attack and eat so many people and animals that the water of the Nile becomes filled with the blood of their victims! Would it not have been better (and more realistic) to simply portray it as it is recounted in the Bible?

Objectionable content

Obviously, most objectionable are the alterations to the Bible itself, but as those have been addressed, the question is what should parents be leary of their children seeing? Well, the good news is that there is no foul language, since the Egyptians do not speak modern English slang (although Moses does issue at least one modern idiomatic remark). Likewise, there is no sex in the film, although there are a number of scantily clad Egyptian women. The real problem, in terms of content, is obviously violence.

It is not surprising that the story of the Exodus is violent, but the violence is graphic at times. Moses is engaged in several fights and battles which involve blood and even some gore, but the most graphic scenes involve the director’s envisioning of the plague of blood as described above. Crocodiles are seen eating people in graphic scenes.

In days past “Exodus: Gods and Kings” might have garnered an R-rating, but it is not much worse than any number of PG-13 films on the market today. Its real offensive content lies in its alterations to the Bible.

Summary

The revival of Biblical epics began with “The Passion of the Christ,” but that revival has more often than not felt like one led by Jim Baker rather than Billy Graham. The most recent debacle was “Noah” written and directed by an atheist which portrayed Noah as a sociopath plotting to kill his own children. “Exodus: Gods and Kings” is not a blasphemous film, but neither is it particularly God honoring either. The Moses of the movie is reflective of its agnostic director. He is a skeptic who looks too much like Maximus and too little like the great Prophet of the Bible. Likewise, Rhamses appears more like a petulant child than one of the greatest Pharaohs who restored Egypt to greatness a hundred and fifty years after Egypt’s humiliation under Moses (oh, wait… I was thinking of the real historical story of the Exodus! Sorry.).

Overall, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” falls short of most of the plethora of previous renditions. If you want to see a movie about Moses, I would recommend “The Prince of Egypt” or even the inaccurate but respectful “The Ten Commandments” by Cecil B. DeMille. I would also recommend the 1995 TV miniseries “Moses” with Sir Ben Kingsley. None of those films get the historical facts straight (they all subscribe to the un-Biblical myth that Rhamses was the Pharaoh of the Exodus), but they are more respectful, make fewer alterations, and are more entertaining.

Positive—Hallelujah! After half a century, at last we have another big-budget Bible epic (“Noah” notwithstanding). The cinematography and CGI are wonderful, and the acting is very good, but don’t read Exodus before seeing it, or you will be disappointed by the divergence. Strangely, the producers feel the public will not accept miracles (only vampires, spidermen and hobbits), thus Moses” rod doesn’t become a serpent, he must swim to the east bank of the Red Sea, Pharaoh makes it back to shore (maybe for a sequel). It is nevertheless enjoyable, and Moses” arguments with God are presented in imaginative, if rather disrespectful, fashion.My Ratings: Moral rating: Good / Moviemaking quality: 3½—Brian Schacht, age 68 (Canada)

Positive—After reading the reviews here, I was hesitant about seeing this film, until I was asked to go. After seeing it with my friends (one of whom is a youth pastor), we unanimously agreed that this was a decent movie, a bit inaccurate, but still a decent. While I agree that there were many liberties taken, such as the logical explanation of the plagues, Red Sea, etc. They did not take away from the fact that these were still orchestrated by God, who in the films (*spoilers*) told Moses to sit back and watch as he punished Egypt.more »

The Bible does say that God sent these plagues on Egypt and parted the Red Sea. Didn’t go into detail HOW he did it, so I can’t fault the director for taking some artistic liberties. It’s actually kind of interesting to hear and see his theories for explaining them. Don’t worry though, readers, God’s greatness and glory isn’t downplayed, as its all an amazing spectacle to watch how the Hebrews are freed.

One problem I DO have, however, is how God is portrayed. Didn’t have a problem with him being portrayed as a child. He’s been portrayed as many other things, so I don’t see why people have problems with this. God is not limited to one thing. Granted, I think it would’ve been better just to have him as a heavenly voice that speaks to Moses from on high, but Hollywood has to do something to personify him, apparently.

Again it’s a questionable choice, but not blasphemous or anything. What I do question, however, are some scenes in the movie where God and Moses are arguing and God speaks on vengeance against the Egyptians. I understand that this is Old Testament God who punishes evil and sin with fire and brimstone, but the way he acts is almost child-like and immature. Perhaps this isn’t what the director had in mind, but it was a failed and inaccurate portrayal of who and what God is. God is supposed to be portrayed as a mysterious, omnipotent, and (let’s be honest) terrifying being who is about to bring justice to an evil nation.

There is a struggle, seemingly, between God and Moses. In the end, however, (*spoilers*) Moses is in fact humbled and submits before God. Trusting and respecting him. It reminds me of how we in our walk with God seemingly struggle with what we feel is best for our lives and what God says is best. This is represented best in the film. Moses tries and fails many times to do things his way, but fails and has to rely on God to fix the problem.

There are many lessons to be taken away from this movie. My prayer and hope is that this film can be used as a tool by the Spirit to lead people to read the more accurate story and find out more about God than Hollywood can ever do in films and television. God can always turn and use things for the salvation of his people and ultimately bring him more Glory.

Positive—I enjoyed “Exodus.” At first, I was offended by God being portrayed as a child, but I remembered Moses was not allowed to see God, so this could be an image of God who spoke for Him. It renewed my own faith and returned me to the Bible to reread Exodus. Well worth it for that!My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4—Lynn C Stahlecker, age 61 (USA)

Positive—Overall, I enjoyed it as a movie, loved the effects and knowing it was a Hollywood rendition and not a historically accurate documentary. Aware of all the errors and putting that aside for now, there is one thing that did not sit right for me, and that was the depiction of God. It has nothing to do with the form or the appearance of God, for who can actually accurately depict God?? My problem was that every time God appeared it was a little “eerie;” I got a little shudder every time “he” appeared, felt like I was watching a horror movie.

I cannot expect a director who is not a Christian to understand the presence of God, but one thing is for sure, the presence of the True Almighty God brings conviction, and His presence is so Holy that no man can stand under it. If that was the True God who had appeared to Moses, Moses would have been kneeling on the ground with huge conviction and humiliation. The depiction of God had no “Awesome Presence” that left Moses humbled. Instead we are left to witness a flat presence which carries no lasting effect. more »

Then the plagues, we should understand the plagues were a judgment directed at each of the Egyptian gods that mankind had placed their trust on, to show how the Egyptian gods have failed in every respect and that YWH is the King of kings. Sadly, the movie depicts God full of rage, almost “out of control” and bent on revenge, truly left an empty hole in the plot. If only they had depicted God’s sincere love for His people that would have made a stronger and deeper story, in my opinion.

Would I recommend it to others? Yes, absolutely, it challenges us and our thinking. We need to know what is in the Bible, what we stand for and who our God is. We need to educate ourselves and become mature Christians rightly dividing the word of truth.

Movies like this promote discernment and allow us to look into the true nature of the Bible, not just reading it for face value and accepting everything anyone tells us. Let this movie challenge you when you watch it. …

Positive—Because I am not so foolish as to get my theology from movies, and because Hollywood cannot be trusted to be faithful to any text, at all, I see no point in getting angry at this. It is as if people are looking for something to rage at. Of course it was inaccurate, but so was Cecil B DeMille’s “The 10 Commandments.” What else do you expect?

But one inaccuracy that will be missed is the explanation of what the Law was for. It was not given to guide where men are frail. It is the ministry of condemnation, the impossible burden to show we are still enslaved to sin, but this legalists will miss. If we ignore the film, it will go away, for it is not great cinematic art. But I found it interesting, an entertainment and nothing more.My Ratings: Moral rating: none / Moviemaking quality: 4—Steve Meikle, age 56 (New Zealand)

Positive—I gave this film a chance, and I was not disappointed. Looking beyond the obvious Biblical errors which have already been alluded to, we are given a very fresh take on the Exodus story. In truth, none of us were there. We don’t know what really happened. We don’t know what the conversations between God and Moses were like. We don’t know what they were like between Moses and Pharaoh. Many people have criticized Ridley Scott for his Atheism/Agnosticism and being the director, but I think that his questions about faith come through pretty clearly in this film. Moses is presented as a confused, reluctant and highly conflicted man. I think that, in fairness, that is exactly how most of us would feel if our world were suddenly turned upside down, and we were revealed to be something other than what we believed we were. more »

Moses was raised an Egyptian. He would have had many he called friends in the palace. He would have considered them family and loved them. Those are not easy feelings to dispel, and in fair fashion, he never really does. He still treats Pharaoh with something akin to compassion and uses his relationships to gain entrance to the palace. I can only imagine how conflicted Moses felt!

Ridley Scott also does a great job of setting the stage for what Moses is to do with the Israelites once they are freed. Moses is shown as a man trained in governance, war and the ways of command. These are all things that he most certainly would have been taught, being brought up in the palace as Pharaoh’s grandson. He didn’t just suddenly know how to command. There was no “John Maxwell School of Leadership” in those days! Moses was indeed an excellent commander who lead the Israelites to many victories throughout Exodus and Leviticus. He was an amazing political leader who had to govern a million plus people wandering in the desert.

Yes, he was lead by God, but there had to be a foundation for God to use! God built that foundation! He did the same with Joseph 400 years earlier. God always puts us in situations to train us for the next level! The Bible jumps from Moses being named by Pharaoh’s daughter, following being nursed (unknown age) Exodus 2:10 to 2:11 when he flees to Midian. 30 plus years elapse. No mention is made of his upbringing. Scott’s Moses argues with God. Yeah he does. So do I, and I’ve been a Christian for 27 years. He yelled at God. So have I. He felt God was unjust. What Christian hasn’t felt that God was unjust? Who of us hasn’t asked God “Why!?”. Who of us hasn’t felt the pain of life and wondered why God allowed what He did? That is the faith journey.

It is His incessant leading. And in the end knowing that we are being lead for His purposes. Are there historical and biblical errors? Yes. And, as has been mentioned, all movies seem to have this. There was no gunpowder used by Moses. It was a reaction of flammable oils that caused the big explosions. Did he knock a chariot over with a spear? Yes, but by jamming the wheel-which anyone who has suffered a front wheel lock on a bike can attest to being accurate.

Do not watch for biblical truth. Aaron never appears with Moses to see Pharaoh. The staff doesn’t become a serpent. There are miracles for sure. Are they less miraculous because of the way they happen or are explained by Pharaoh’s magicians? No. Are they Biblically accurate in their portrayal? Some kind of are but most not really. Judge for yourself on that one.

I laughed out loud at Pharaoh’s displeasure with his magicians! He kept killing them off in frustration.

I loved Moses reaction to the final plague, by the way. His reaction to the death of the Firstborn was completely plausible. Remember, he knew these people and loved and liked many of them. Talk about conflicted! If there is anything I have learned over the years, don’t rely on Hollywood to teach you your Bible. It is our responsibility to learn that by reading it. Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I found much plausible and even completely believable, especially in the first half.

Neutral—Main reviewer fairly accurate. Movie not as good as I’d hoped. The best movie I’ve seen is the 1995 “Moses” tv-movie. Funny it had Kingsley in it, as well. I’m disappointed Bale acted in this movie. He should stick to “The Dark Knight” and other darkly written movies.My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3½—Andy, age 41 (USA)

Negative

Negative—I went to see this movie without checking out the reviews first—the first time I’ve done that with a “Biblical based” movie, but when a couple buddies asked if I wanted to come see it with them I figured, sure, how bad can it be? I got the first foreshadowings of my answer in the first 5 minutes of the movie, when ***SPOILER*** an Egyptian priestess prophesied concerning Moses” future as she was performing her ritual to the Egyptian gods. Part of the prophesy came to pass on the battlefield, leaving you to “wonder” about the second part, though anyone with any familiarity with the story of Moses could immediately guess the meaning.

From there things went from bad to worse. When Moses discovered—by accident—that he was a Hebrew, he kills two soldiers in self defense. He is then exiled when the tale reaches the ears of his “cousin” Rameses (never mind that Rameses could not have been Pharaoh during the Exodus, since his reign was close to 150 years after the children of Israel departed Egypt).more »

His exile introduces us to a very different Moses than we see in the Bible. One who (after just 9 years, rather than the 40 years of Biblical time that passed) is ready at just a hint from God to go back and save Israel without God’s help. Of course, let’s not forget that he was hit on the head rather hard in a landslide right before seeing the burning bush.

God also didn’t speak from the burning bush, but rather appeared as a child beside it. This child form comes to represent God through the rest of the of the movie. Because Moses is ready to take on all of Egypt by himself, the role of Aaron is eliminated entirely in the movie.

Additionally, Zipporah does not leave for Egypt with Moses, as she does in the Bible (if you read the text, she plays a crucial role in this journey, as she performs the circumcision of Moses” sons that saves Moses from death at the hands of the angel of the Lord, but then in the movie Moses had only one son instead of two).

Beyond even the major Biblical problems, which have already been addressed, the storyline displayed a brazen ignorance of the culture of the ancient world. While they do avoid most modern day idioms, there are a couple that appear in the movie. More importantly, though, they superimpose modern western culture onto ancient Egypt and ancient Israel.

One example of this is the priests, who try to find natural explanations for all the plagues. In the ancient culture, any such occurrences would have been attributed to a god. They would not have denied the existence of God, but rather contended that the God of Moses was not the equal or the superior to their gods.

Another example is the response of Pharaoh to the plague of the firstborn, as he says “is this your God—a killer of babies? What kind of fanatics would worship such a god?… ” In a world where children were unimportant—where some cultures sacrificed children to their gods as part of their rituals, and a Pharaoh killed children to keep the population from growing to large—a god who would kill the children of his enemies would hardly be an anomaly. In fact, the killing of men, women, and children was commonplace even in the pursuit of war.

The superimposition of modern western culture values—where offenses against children are esteemed as the highest form of evil—onto ancient eastern culture is evident in scenes like this one. Oh, and forget the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. As far as this modern “retelling” is concerned, that part never happened either. ***END SPOILER***

There is much, much more that I could say about the movie’s divergence from the scripture. In fact, it would be much faster and shorter to write a list of points where the movie’s plot converges with the biblical account than where it diverges.

While some people have expressed the view that it is enough that they attributed the plagues and the parting of the sea to God, I find it difficult to agree. The movie’s portrayal of God is, first of all, far from the God presented in the Bible, which I do not believe is honoring to Him.

Secondly, the Biblical account was inspired by God, so taking liberties with the precious word that God has passed down to us and reforming the story to fit an image that is more pleasing to our materialistic, narcissistic society is hardly honoring Him.

Negative—Mostly blasphemous (like an agnostic or atheist made it). Highlights are:
• God is played by a bratty little child
• Moses is typically yelling at him
• Miracles are as if they could be of natural causes
• “God” is made out to be an uncaring and petty killer of children (the firstborn sons)
• Pharoah is a reasonable guy
• Moses and God are the unreasonable deranged ones

Typical Hollywood fare, aside from all the historical errors this script on Exodus makes sense to those who hate God, because what they hate is being accountable.My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3—Eric S, age 46 (USA)

Negative—I’ll start with the positive and get it out of the way. The use of 3D here was the best I’ve seen used in any movie since 2008-ish. Fantastic. If you’re going to see this film, pay the extra 4 bucks and hold on tight to your glasses. From an artistic standpoint, Ridley Scott uses a technique called “fore-shortening,” for scaling of landscapes and armies, in a way that I’ve never seen applied in a movie. It is clear that He has completely mastered his technique of panning into frames of view with mountain ranges juxtaposed to flat plains and then having thousands of tiny ant-people sprawling the landscape. Wonderfully done. Was really cool.

The very bad. Ridley Scott’s handling of the timeline of chronological events leading up to and including the Exodus is completely out of order, out of whack, inconsistent, and in many places completely made up. Many things never even happened. Not surprisingly, this is a Bill-Nye friendly version of the Exodus, as Hollywood plays down the supernatural cause of the plagues to a naturalistic progression of disease of one event to another. more »

There is also a hint or suggestion, based on a brief scene where Moses looks up into the night sky and spots a comet plummeting straight down out of the atmosphere creating, wait for it… “The Perfect Storm” that manages to suck all of the water out of the Red Sea, then hours later the waters fall back into place, destroying pharaoh’s army. Right, of course! That explains everything, because this is more believable than a supernatural intervention from God.

I was hoping the only problem that I would have with the film would be the title. As there is one true God and Moses never claimed to be or wanted to be a king.

—Where is it recorded in scripture that hundreds of thousands of psychotic crocodiles suddenly appear out of no where? Duh. —God is a boy? “The Last Air Bender”? Eddie Murphy’s “The Golden Child”?

Negative—The movie shows only slight resemblance to the biblical one. I would say it is purely fictional, with only parts resembling the biblical story. The most offensive to me was that it portrayed God as a young boy that interacted with Moses. It’s just way off base in so many ways. It’s so far off it would take too long to go into here.My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5—Jered S, age 47 (USA)

Negative—After being disappointed by “Noah” in the spring, I was hoping for more from “Exodus”—a 2014 version of “The Ten Commandments,” with special effects that drew crowds in to see an accurate portrayal of Exodus. (I did read reviews, but those have been mixed, as you can even see on this page.) Instead, what I viewed tonight was a shell of a story—with location, some character names, and types of plagues—radically altered to the point that disappointed (yes, even offended) me and the audience.

The murmurings throughout the movie and the uncomfortable silence as we all left the theater was a strong indication that most of us felt “had.” My son and I began to read the Exodus when we left the theater, and we will be reading and discussing for days. So, in that, I’m glad that we opened discussion about the fact that the world does not believe the Bible is accurate, so directors who do not have a relationship with God and do not value His Word would feel the license to change to what they already believe is fiction.

My issues with the film are too numerous to list here, but let me address a few concerns I have in the “artistic license” that the director takes. (Spoilers) Yahweh and the angel of the Lord are represented as a child. The angel of the Lord is not a child; angels are mighty warriors as we see in Daniel, when they seek to come defend Daniel but are held up as they battle the prince of Persia (a demonic warrior). And He did not present Himself in the burning bush and on the mount as a child, but as “I am,” an all knowing, powerful-but-merciful Almighty God. (Moses was afraid to look at Him.) more »

In the Bible, we know that Aaron spoke for Moses, but Aaron is all but absent in the film. Aaron’s staff is also absent; instead, Moses clings to a sword that Pharaoh gave him. Thus, the future of the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple is removed from this portrayal.

Moses was a gentle man—one who stood up for the slaves and who rarely lost his temper. He asked the Israelites why they were harming each other early in the true account. He only killed one man—a slave driver who was beating an Israeli slave—but he was fearful and quiet. (He fled to Midian out of fear.)

He did become angry with the people when the Israelites were wandering in the desert, and he struck the stone from which God was providing water and thus lost his chance to see the promised land. But the Moses of this film is defiant, arrogant, eager to fight and kill; he’s a warrior. (God does not choose warriors; He chooses the weak.)

Perhaps the most horrifying element of the film comes at the end, when Moses and God (the child) are on the mountain, and Moses is carving the Ten Commandments himself with God instructing him and asking if he agrees. This artistic license is a bit too parallel to John Smith’s and Mohammad’s “going off alone and being inspired to write.” Those who know the Truth know that God wrote the tables with His finger, an indication that the scripture is from Him. (This is important because the Bible was not written by one man but was documented by many and “inspired by God” —2 Tim 3:16).

I cannot encourage anyone to invest in this film. If you are curious, read Exodus and then wait to rent this for $1. I wish I had not supported the production with five $8 tickets tonight.

Negative—I have personally not read the Bible since I was about 19 in 1979, but I have always had a deep faith in God, and I have to say that I was very disappointed in “Exodus: Gods and Kings”… I could not have been more disappointed in “Exodus Gods and Kings.” It’s impossible for me to not compare it with “The Ten Commandments” (1956) (since it’s exactly the same story) so here goes… “The Ten Commandments” movie of 1956 at 3 hours and 40 minutes, with No CGI, and No battle scenes is easily 10 times more enjoyable than “Exodus: Gods and Kings.”

Every moment of The Ten Commandments is so captivating with top quality story, scripts, acting, directing, sets, costumes, visual effects, and music that time really flies by when watching it. “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” however, is so desperately dull, with horrible script, cheap looking sets, lack luster performances, I can honestly say that it’s the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. Even the music was forgettable (except when it sounded like the “Stargate” movie soundtrack, which it did a lot). And don’t even get me started on the visual effects in “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” the ONE scene in the entire movie that’s really CGI and really great is directed so completely without thought that it makes no sense whatsoever…more »

SMALL SPOILER ALERT: The water in the Red Sea is rapidly receding to the right, sort of like what happens before a tsunami. It only takes a few minutes for that area of the Red Sea to be shallow enough for the thousands of recently freed Hebrews to start walking across. This is disappointing as far as visuals go, but does make sense so far. Then, just before the giant wave comesm we see absolutely spectacular storm clouds and multiple tornadoes and waterspouts develop. These visual effects are some of the best ever in the history of CGI, but the tornadoes didn’t actually do anything at allm in this scene. They did not hold back the water the way the storm clouds created by God did in “The Ten Commandments,” they simply appeared for no reason, just before the huge tsunami wave crashed down on Pharaoh’s soldiers.

To show the outright sloppiness of this movie again, in scene after scene, there are one or two guys spying on Moses, and nothing ever happens as a result. It’s a big set up to a big nothing.

LAST, BUT NOT LEAST: If you happen to be a fan of the “Ancient Aliens” show or believe in Hebrew Mysticism you will be very, very disappointed in “Exodus: Gods and Kings.” Mostly because, the only reason Moses sees a burning bush or talks to God the first time is that he just got conked on the head by a huge rock.

Then, every time a “miracle” happens, this sassy little boy who is just now angry at the Egyptians after 400 years of Hebrew enslavement, is the one does the miracles, not Moses. Moses really does none of the miracles in this movie. He has a sword through most of it, and never carries a staff.

In the Bible, when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai his face was shining. They at least touch on this in the 1956 movie, but in “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” the only thing that happens on Mt. Sinai is that the little boy dictates the ten commandments to Moses as he carves them onto the rock tablets. And they don’t even show him actually saying any of them. He’s just sitting there watching Moses work.

Finally, I have to say that it would have been very nice to actually see the Ark of The Covenant in a movie about Moses. Moses is shown riding with presumably the Ark in a basket on a veiled wagon, but still the only time in the history of the movies that we get to see the actual Ark is in an Indiana Jones movie, which is also easily 10 times better than “Exodus: Gods and Kings.”

So if you feel like seeing a Biblical movie or a movie about ancient Egypt, definitely buy or rent The (1956) Ten Commandments or “The Robe.” And, as inaccurate as it may be I even found “10,000 BC” hugely more enjoyable than “Exodus: Gods and Kings.”

Negative—I was so disappointed with story line. It seems Hollywood feels they can create a better story than the real one. I am angry that I spent my money on this horrible movie and am discouraged from seeing other movies of “faith.” I wish the spirit of God would sweep through the Hollywood folks and change their hearts toward Christ.My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3—G. Frich, age 65 (USA)

Negative—I paid to see this movie twice. Movies do one of three things—impress, give relief, or disappoint. This movie made no attempt to give credence to, or at least exhibit respect for, the belief billions of people on Earth hold to the Power and majesty of God. The telling of Exodus should be approached as important because of the potential impact this story could have in the lives of people. Power used subjugates people, taking human life for personal gain. It is good that this producer is not making movies on the history of the world wide slave trade. You can always do better than making God a miniature Dalai Lama.

I don’t feel like I have wasted my money, but I do feel across the board the profane and debase subjects get better treatment and craftsmanship than The Holy Bible.My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4—Rev. G.E. Felder, age 62 (USA)

Negative—I went to the theater with an open mind. My objective opinion as a movie-goer: It was TEDIOUS experience—what a drag—overlong and underwhelming. My personal opinion as a Christian: Why did the story depart from the Bible’s? (oh yeah, the director Scott is an Atheist). And finally, my biggest criticism/complaint/disappointment/… where was Moses’ faith? The Moses in this film was about as Spiritual and Faith-filled as Kermit in “The Muppets Escape From Egypt.”My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 2½—Leonardo, age 72 (USA)

Negative—The new documentary, “Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus,” coming out on Jan. 19th, makes a very compelling case for the historicity of the biblical event.My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4½—Michael, age 33 (USA)

Negative—Christian Bale is absolutely horrible in this movie. Why? To answer, one must look partly at why the movies “The Ten Commandments” and “The Passion…” were so successful. In both movies, the actors were religious, one Episcopalian, one Catholic, and believed in God. So, they had an extra kick to their acting which Christian Bale, whose heart is dark, does not. In “Exodus: Gods and Kings” [notice that liberals capitalize the plural, “gods” to “Gods”], Christian Bale, an avowed atheist or agnostic, definite commie-socialist and God-hater, says this about Moses: “I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life… He was a very troubled, tumultuous man and mercurial. But the biggest surprise was the nature of God. He was equally very mercurial.” Mercurial means, unstable; subject to sudden mood changes; volatile.

***SPOILER*** In the awful movie, a chain reaction of plagues occur: alligators go wild and eat people, causing their blood to turn the Nile red. The blood causes the frogs in the river to jump out into Egyptian homes. The dead frogs bring larvae that become gnats/flies. The bites from the gnats/flies causes boils on the skin and deadly infections on animals. Not ONCE does Moses appear before Pharaoh [Ramses, historically inaccurate]. And, Moses gave away his staff, early on, to a shepherd boy. God appears a few times as a 10 year old boy who makes inaccurate statements and screams back and forth at a screaming Moses.more »

In one bizarre moment, this Moses is at the Red Sea and yells at God while rubbing his Egyptian ring, a curled-up snake. There is NO pillar of fire, but plenty of pillar of tornadoes far away. The Red Sea event is not credible at all, and, I won’t spoil the ending, but to say that Pharaoh and Moses would easily win the first platinum medals at the Olympics. My suggestion, wait for the free TV version.

Negative—This film makes a mockery of the Bible text, the character of Moses and God, the Creator of this Universe, being depicted as a petulant child. Moses never has to remove his sandals, for there is no mention of holy ground, which seems intended.

As a Christian I should have read the reviews before watching it. It will appeal perhaps to secular viewers for the special effects, as they are grandiose, including bomb blasts… It sadly misses out on the whole story line.

From the many comments I have now read about the film, I wish not to repeat the many discrepancies already mentioned. Here are a few comments of my own: Moses relied on a sword from Pharaoh’s house and not a staff in the movie. None of the miracles of manna and quail were depicted. Moses never struck a rock for water. The biblical account of Moses and Aaron pleading with Pharaoh to let the people go is reduced to a few encounters that don’t follow the story line. Rather, plagues seem to arrive one after another, not to mention the crocodiles eating people, turning the water red… Pharaoh is depicted as a helpless father and not a stubborn leader and enslaver.

Negative—This movie is a “humanistic” view of the story of Moses and the Exodus—God is presented as a child, crocodiles start the plagues which then cause all the other plagues. Moses never shows Hebrew faith in God and seems to only be Hebrew by marrying into the faith—with no belief in a God even presented by himself or the Hebrew people—as if they are but mistreated slaves only. I could go on but you get the idea.

This is the language often used by liberal, agnostic/atheistic filmmakers—they “humanize” a Biblical story (as in the movie Noah) and make it seem like God is not omnipotent, but rather nature—and the nature of man—is omnipotent. Even at the end of the movie, Moses hammers out the tablets of the ten commandments—not God created as there is no dictating by this God-child shown. This humanizing treatment devalues our true God, and could even be seen as Moses being nothing more than an activist freeing the slaves, and himself creating words on tablets of stone—never mentioning these Ten Commandments of God! These are but writings of a man in a cave. Kind of sounds like Mohammad in a cave telling stories that became a religion—Islam. This humanistic comparison symbolism is there.My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3½—Michael, age 57 (USA)

Negative—This movie cannot be compared to the 1956 version by Cecil De Mille, which inspires the viewer with faith in God. This movie does not. It has computer graphics, but no substance, no soul. The 1956 version was the best, since the director clearly had faith in God. Three cheers for the 1956 version, and none for this version.My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2—Porushh, age 45 (India)

Negative—I am very offended by this movie, because we all know Moses, his wife and the pharaohs were not white. The maker of this movie should be ashamed of himself for making such an movie. White people always want to place themselves in history. But we all know that their history goes back in time so far. The people in that time were of a darker skin. Egypt is in Africa. So why do you have a white man playing as Moses. Moses’ wife was black, too. King Tut casted all pale face people out the kingdom into the foothills and mountains. This movie is totally biased.My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: ½—Tommy, age 37 (USA)

Negative—I saw this film in 3D and in HD via XFinity On Demand for free. This two-and-a-half-hour “epic” retelling of The Second Book of Moses called Exodus feels more like a lengthy temper tantrum by an atheist director who is hell-bent on shoving his ignorance down moviegoers” throats. Of course, those of us who are Christians know that everything in this motion picture is an absolute falsehood. It is not even historically accurate.

The only minor thing it got right was that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army… BEFORE he slew the Egyptian and fled unto Midian. However, the events that were depicted, even there, most likely never happened. In Book II Section X of Antiquities of the Jews, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37 A.D.—100 A.D.) saith that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and laid siege to the city of Saba (an event mentioned in Cecil B. DeMille’s epic 1956 partial remake of his own film “The Ten Commandments”). more »

The depiction of God as a child is blasphemous and highly offensive. The acting is wooden, even from Academy Award winner Sir Ben Kingsley and Sigourney Weaver, both of whom are thoroughly wasted in this bore-fest of a production. Academy Award winner Christian Bale seemed the most bored here, as can be inferred from his highly inflammatory comments about Moses, calling him the most barbaric and schizophrenic individual he’d ever read about.

In my opinion, Charlton Heston is the definitive screen Moses and Yul Brynner the definitive Ramses II; Bale and Edgerton pale in comparison. There are a few good wide shots of “Egypt,” which were most likely computer-generated anyway, like the Coliseum in “Gladiator.” However, that one sentence is all the good I can say about this blasphemous piece of celluloid.

Read The Second Book Of Moses called Exodus and see both the 1923 and 1956 versions of “The Ten Commandments” (the latter being the definitive screen version, in my opinion) and “The Prince Of Egypt” (a faithful, animated version of the Biblical story).

See this version ONCE, if you must, just to compare it to the Bible, and the aforementioned film versions, and then eschew it like the plague. Rated PG-13.

Negative—Thank you to all who have submitted comments. I am marveled at the various comments that were given from different viewpoints. In comparison with my very narrow observations, I was reminded that I should be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to anger”. There is one thing I’d like to add. I am a fan of fantasy, adventure and sci-fi movies. What plaques me most about this movie is that I am left with a question—what is the intention behind it? It’s too disturbing to contemplate, but I think it is worth mentioning. It seems to be directed at a Christian audience, or those with a Christian upbringing. I cannot include Jews, as I am not familiar with Jewish scripture. Although portrayed as mythical to some extent, it cannot be listed under any of the above-mentioned genres, since those types of movies include “details” of the fictional stories. A lot of “detail” was excluded in this movie, as in the background info or time-lapses in-between scenes were not accompanied by a narrator or any text. So that rules out that the movie was meant to be mythical in essence, such as the movies based on Greek mythology.

The Holy Bible is believed to be the best-selling book and Christianity the biggest religion (although these statements are contested). Why then deliberately distort what many regard as truth? I didn’t like the movie “Noah” at all, but “Noah” was depicted as a fictional story and rightly falls into one of those genres. To us Christians, it is heartbreaking; but “Exodus: God’s and Kings” is blasphemous. To be able to “follow” the story, you need some knowledge of the biblical account of the events. What makes it worse, is that it is most appealing to teenagers and young adults. So the question remains: “What was the intention of the making of this movie?”. I was just shocked.My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2—Rowena, age 36 (South Africa)

Negative—This movie is very badly produced. Firstly, god appears as a little boy—is nonsense. The Red Sea not being pushed up, very bad. The person who prophesy for pharaoh is not a woman; it was a man. Please don’t confuse the people. The Bible is sacred, so don’t turn the Bible upside down. People should not watch this movie.My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 2½—Sheri, age 58 (South Africa)

Movie Critics

…a clumsy retreat into biblical history… the script… is anachronistic and almost comically clumsy… One of the profound mysteries of “Exodus”… is who the intended target audience is for this grandly engineered bombast. …[1½/4]—Liam Lacey, The Globe and Mail

…A visual spectacle brought down by a clunky script and lack of focus… leaves emotion in the dust by trading spectacle for a compelling story… [2/4]—Linda Barnard, The Toronto Star

…dazzling but hollow… Bale is miscast here — he doesn’t have the gravity or presence to play Moses — and he has a tendency to mangle the script’s often creaky dialogue. Edgerton fares worse… [2½/4]—Rene Rodriguez, The Miami Herald

…God as a bratty kid… As for Bale, he seems to have lost his compass. His accent strays, his famous intensity wasted on clunky dialogue. …Edgerton is a one-note Ramses… [2/4]—Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer

A numbing and soulless spectacle of 3-D, computer-generated imagery run amok… Self-serious to a fault, it packs in more and more in terms of story and extravagant visuals while offering too little in terms of actual character development and engaging drama. …It certainly doesn’t help that Christian Bale plays Moses in mostly stiff and detached fashion… [1½/4]—Christy Lemire, Associated Press Movie Critic

Comments from non-viewers

Negative—I have not yet seen the film and wanted to read your review before so doing. I did so in order to prepare myself, but also to discern whether to ask friends to watch it with me. It is no surprise at all to learn that it is historically inaccurate and deviates radically from the Bible. I think the major question should not be why Agnostic directors/producers get it wrong, but, rather, why is it that Christian directors/producers do not make a more significant investment to tell the story accurately.

Additionally, I think we Christians should be very careful in how we respond. I think your review is well written, generous and graceful. It presents the facts and argues without emotion. Thank you for giving us an excellent example as to how to respond.—Linda, age 48 (France)

Negative—Why would I, as a Christian, want to see a movie from a director that is an atheist and has an extremely foul mouth, that portrays God as a little boy and portrays Moses as an Obama-type trying to push Pharaoh to make citizens of the slaves?My Ratings: Moral rating: / Moviemaking quality: —Robert Garcia, age 67 (USA)

Negative—Ridley Scott is a christophobic charlatan, and I will NOT be seeing his blasphemous “adaptation” of the Book of Exodus. I’ve never bothered with any movie of his, for that matter.—Peter, age 24 (USA)

Negative—Why do producers and directors make a Christian movie without reading the Bible. If you thought the movie “Noah” was bad, this is much worse. I would have thought Christian Bale and Russell Crow would have been smarter than that. Don’t waste your money. The old movie, “The Bible” was a very good one, and this remake was not even in the same class.—Tom English, age 63 (USA)

Negative—…I have read most comments here and have not seen any Christians concerned about the fact that we continue to make “Biblical” films that do not show the closest likeness of Biblical Characters. Let’s start with the fact that any film in ancient Egypt should be African looking. The majority of the Bible is set in what was Africa but is now known as the Middle East. Technically, most of the regions in the Middle east should be described as North East Africa. I’m not saying Europeans should not be featured, but they should certainly be the minority. It is proved that Moses was African, it is proved that Pharaoh was African… so why are we continuing to live this lie. It’s time that the true Christians wake up because one day, when our Saviour returns, most of us will not even recognise or believe it is Him.—Ngo, age 26 (United Kingdom)